Boeing, con una decisione a sorpresa, si ritira dalla gara per un nuovo addestratore della U.S. Navy che deve sostituire i suoi T-45 con un nuovo velivolo più adatto alle esigenze di formazione dei piloti che andranno a operare i caccia di quinta e sesta generazione. Il 12 giugno, con uno stringato comunicato stampa, il colosso aeronautico statunitense ha riferito che “si impegna a rispettare i propri impegni e partecipa alle gare d’appalto solo quando ritiene di poter fornire la soluzione più adatta alle esigenze e ai requisiti dei propri clienti. Dopo un’attenta valutazione, abbiamo stabilito che il T-7A non soddisfa i requisiti del sistema di addestramento per piloti di jet della marina statunitense. Pertanto, abbiamo informato la marina che non parteciperemo alla gara d’appalto in corso. Rimaniamo impegnati a fornire il T-7A come soluzione di addestramento moderna e orientata alla crescita per i piloti di quarta, quinta e sesta generazione, in linea con l’evoluzione dei requisiti. Siamo lieti di poter fornire e sostenere le capacità attuali e future della marina”.

Sebbene Boeing non abbia riportato quali requisiti non fossero soddisfatti dal T-7A, Breaking Defense afferma che la motorizzazione del velivolo, data da due General Electric F404, non è adatta per le richieste della U.S. Navy pertanto l’adeguamento comporterebbe un lungo ciclo di sviluppo e prove che “ostacolerebbe la capacità operativa iniziale” del T-7. La rinuncia di Boeing segue quella di Lockheed Martin, che ad aprile aveva abbandonato la gara col suo TF-50N sviluppato insieme a Korea Aerospace Industries.

Ora, le restanti aziende in lizza per il programma sono Textron Aviation Defense, che offre il Beechcraft M-346N nell’ambito di una partnership con Leonardo (ovvero la versione “americanizzata” dell’M-346 nazionale), ed SNC, che offre il Fremo in collaborazione con Northrop Grumman e General Atomics.

Leonardo aveva presentato il suo addestratore avanzato all’esposizione Navy League Sea Air & Space 2023, nel Maryland, insieme ad altri prodotti e servizi ad alta tecnologia per un’ampia gamma di esigenze operative in ambito marittimo. L’M-346 sarebbe una soluzione ottimale per soddisfare i requisiti di addestramento della U.S. Navy del programma UJTS (Undergraduate Jet Training Systems) e TSA (Tactical Surrogate Aircraft). L’M-346 è infatti un collaudato velivolo di addestramento integrato associato a un sistema complesso basato a terra (con simulatori) pienamente operativo, in grado di addestrare gli aspiranti piloti da caccia agli scenari operativi più impegnativi. L’interfaccia uomo-macchina all’avanguardia offerto dal “sistema M-346”, offre i più disparati scenari tattici con la presenza di sensori, minacce e bersagli di ogni tipo che fanno di questo addestratore un vero e proprio simulacro degli aerei da combattimento di ultima generazione. Dal punto di vista prettamente aeronautico, le qualità di volo e le prestazioni dell’M-346 sono ampiamente collaudate e mature avendo accumulato più di 100mila ore di volo, e come certificato anche dalla decisione dell’Aeronautica Militare italiana di utilizzarlo per le Frecce Tricolori in sostituzione del vetusto MB-339 PAN, pertanto la marina statunitense potrebbe optare per la macchina di Leonardo avendo richiesto espressamente un velivolo “già collaudato”.

Strada spianata per l’M-346 “americanizzato”

Dopo che l’U.S. Air Force ha optato per il T-7A di Boeing per sostituire la numerosa linea dei suoi aerei da addestramento, il ritiro dell’industria USA potrebbe quindi spianare la strada all’M-346 considerando che il Freedom è un velivolo nato espressamente per questa competizione e non ha accumulato esperienza di volo.

La decisione di Boeing è anche sicuramente legata alle difficoltà di sviluppo del T-7: a giugno 2021, l’U.S. Air Force aveva infatti affermato che molteplici problemi stavano affliggendo il programma, come, ad esempio, la decisione di spostare la produzione su vasta scala dal 2022 al 2023 a causa della carenza di componenti fondamentali, per via dei ritardi di progettazione iniziali e per la necessità di ulteriori test per correggere problemi all’ala dell’aereo, che comportano un’instabilità lungo l’asse di rollio quando il T-7A vola ad angoli di attacco elevati.

Sebbene l’M-346 non sia “navalizzato”, risulta essere il candidato ideale in quanto la U.S. Navy nel suo bando di gara di marzo 2026 ha indicato che il suo nuovo aereo da addestramento non dovrà atterrare sulle portaerei, a differenza del T-45. Inoltre, la marina USA ha affermato che l’aereo non dovrà supportare le simulazioni di atterraggio su portaerei, ovvero l’atterraggio su una pista progettata per simulare l’appontaggio. Il velivolo dovrà però avere “capacità di simulazione di velivoli uniche” per addestrare i piloti agli atterraggi sulle portaerei, e questo requisito sembra fatto apposta proprio per la macchina di Leonardo, che grazie alla sua particolare architettura software, divisa tra elementi terrestri e sull’aereo, è in grado di simulare molteplici scenari operativi come avviene correntemente al centro di addestramento nazionale di Decimomannu (CA), l’International Flight Training School (IFTS).

Il centro, la cui costruzione è cominciata nel 2020, sta formando i primi piloti, anche stranieri, con un programma di addestramento basato sul modello “train as you fight”. In particolare, il rigoroso processo di preparazione dei piloti consente di ottenere i più alti profili di addestramento per i caccia di quarta e quinta generazione, come l’F-35, ma, in prospettiva, sarà in grado di addestrare il personale di volo anche per il prossimo velivolo di sesta generazione. In buona sostanza, l’M-346 risulta essere l’unica opzione a basso rischio e perfettamente adatta per l’U.S. Navy.

L'articolo Boeing si ritira dalla gara per il nuovo aereo da addestramento della U.S. Navy proviene da InsideOver.

A recent report by the American newspaper New York Times has claimed that a new finding suggests that American and Dutch authorities hid the real reason behind the 2009 crash of a Turkish Airlines plane in the Netherlands. The allegation comes at a point when the American manufacturer is suffering heavy economic losses and the loss of trust due to two deadly incidents in 2018 and 2019. This news may come as the ultimate blow for the company and it may also raise questions on how investigations are carried out.

On 25 February 2009, a Turkish Airlines aircraft crashed at the Netherlands’ Schipol Airport, killing nine people and injuring 117 others. The report by authorities claimed that the main cause of the incident was the pilots’ fault. The report mentioned that during the moment of the plane’s landing, the two altimeters of the plane were showing different values which caused a malfunction in the aircraft’s autopilot system. The main responsibility, in this case, was related to the pilots as they did not intervene to fix the issue but no other problem was pointed out in the findings. However, the New York Times article stressed that some aviation safety experts, such as Dr Sidney Dekker, accused Boeing of concealing their risky design choices and faulty safety assessments as the company didn’t inform pilots before the malfunction occurred. Furthermore, the necessary information for pilots to prevent this malfunction wasn’t included in pilot guidebooks according to the latest findings. The New York Times said that American authorities changed the details on the report to prevent any accusations against Boeing. A professor from Ohio State University and advisor to Federal Aviation Administration David Woods mentioned that “the Turkish Airlines accident should have awakened everyone.”

Nine years after the Turkish Airlines crash at Schipol airport, another incident shocked the world when a Lion Air Flight 610 crashed into the Java sea soon after taking off from Jakarta. All 189 people on board were killed. This was the first crash that involved the 737 Max 8 aircrafts introduced in 2017. Initial reports after the crash suggested that the aircraft’s airspeed indicators malfunctioned, similar to the 2009 crash. The system failure was again related to design flaw, where the Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System of the 737 Max series caused an automatic nose-down trim. Following the reports, both the Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing warned all operators on how to avoid such events to prevent another crash such as the Lion Air Flight 610. However, like some global task forces claimed, Boeing failed to sufficiently explain the malfunctions related to the Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System, and after only five months, another fatal crash took place, which again involved a Boeing aircraft.

The Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 from Addis Ababa to Nairobi on 10 March 2019 crashed only six minutes after taking off. All 157 people on board the flight lost their lives. The Boeing 737 Max 8 was again at the centre of controversy. Following both incidents related to the same aircraft, a majority of airline companies started grounding Boeing 737 Max 8 aircrafts and cancelled their orders from the American manufacturer. Initial studies on the black box of the plane showed clear similarities with the Lion Air Flight 610 crash and again the system forced the aircraft to perform an automatic nose-down trim. Pilots failed to respond to the event. Despite the lack of action by the pilots, acclaimed pilot Chesley Sullenberger defended them, sayıng: “Even knowing what was going to happen, I could see how crews would have run out of time and altitude before they could have solved the problems.”

A total of 355 people were killed in three crashes related to Boeing and all of the cases were caused by similar malfunctions according to the findings. The New York Times article claimed the similarities between these three events (sensor failure) and said that if the reason behind the 2009 crash was aired transparently, the following two deadly incidents could have been prevented. The New York Times article will again draw attention to Boeing’s design choices and faulty safety assessments, initiating a new test of trust for the American giant. However, the credibility of investigators will also be questioned by the public and the power of aircraft companies and their influence will also become a serious matter of investigation. The theory of parallelism between the crashes emerging from these claims and the real link between the incidents will emerge after a series of investigations is conducted appropriately on the matter. Despite these needs, the news is perhaps filling the gaps on some unanswered questions from 2009. The former CEO of Turkish Airlines, Temel Kotil at that time claimed that Dutch authorities prevented Turkish Airlines officials to reach the crash site by handcuffing them. The event caused many conspiracy theories at the time, with some media outlets claiming the involvement of the FBI in the event.

Many years have passed since the Turkish Airlines crash but the New York Times article may reopen some closed cases to find new details about the three deadly crashes. Of course, it is difficult to forecast what action authorities might take next and whether new investigations will be carried out. However, what people are now asking is what measures authorities might take and whether new investigations will be carried out? What remains certain though is people asking themselves, “would it have been possible to prevent the deaths of over 300 people if they had taken the case of Turkish Airlines seriously?”

L'articolo Boeing’s Role in the 2009 Turkish Airlines Crash proviene da InsideOver.

Iran has finally taken responsibility for shooting down the Ukrainian jetliner leading to the loss of 176 lives, on the night it launched missile strikes against US targets.

Although it had been a widely held belief by many, especially in Europe and America that the Boeing jet was brought down by a missile, it took Tehran days to take accountability for the crash.

Iran’s admission is a big step in solving the circumstances that led to the crash. However, recorded cockpit and flight data from the period before the incident will still have to be reviewed and analysed as required by the ICAO regulations governing air crash investigation as laid down at the Chicago Convention of 1944.

This is where we are likely to see a strain in the international protocol requiring cooperation in air crash investigation. One thing that the key players in the current crisis in the Middle East have agreed on is that the plane was shot down by mistake after it was confused for an enemy aircraft.

But still, they have not hesitated to use it to reinforce their stand in the current crisis that arose after the killing of General Qassem Soleimani. While Iran has admitted bringing down the jet by mistake, it has blamed the US for creating the situation that led to the crash. On the other hand, the US has used it to put pressure on Tehran with President Trump tweeting support for the Iranian’s who have come out to protest against the shooting of the aircraft.

Nevertheless, ICAO’s Chicago Convention of 1944, made it clear, that the sole objective of Annex 13 investigations are to prevent accidents and incidents and not the apportion of blame or liability. “Annex 13 investigations result in reports of which the contents are shared to improve safety and best practices.”

According to the 1944 Convention of which both Iran and US are signatories, the country in which the accident occurred, in this case Iran, shall institute an investigation into the circumstances of the accident and be responsible for the conduct of such investigations.

Annex 13, (Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigations) to the Convention gives Iran unlimited independence in the conduct of the investigation and unrestricted authority over how it is conducted. This includes the gathering and analysis of all relevant information relating to the accident, the protection of the crash record, the issuance of safety recommendation, the determination of the cause of the crash, and the compilation of the final report.

On the other hand, it also provides for the involvement in the investigations of the state operating the aircraft, the state in which the aircraft was registered, and the state in which the aircraft was designed and manufactured.

In this case, America is allowed to participate in the investigations on the basis that Boeing manufactured the aircraft, while Ukraine is allowed to take part on the basis that it is the state of registry and also the operator of the aircraft.

The regulations also allow Canada which suffered many casualties to send a representative to take part in the investigations.

This is based on a clause which says, “A state which has a special interest in accident, by virtue of fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens is entitled to visit the scene of the accident, have access to the relevant factual information which is approved for public release by the state conducting the investigation, and receive a copy of the accident final report.”

This means America, Ukraine, and Canada are all interested parties in the investigations.

Black boxes relating to Boeing aircrafts have always been handed to the Boeing company in the US for analysis. But there are situations where countries have refused to send them to the US over for fear of bias. In March 2019, Ethiopian Airlines refused to hand the black box from the Boeing 737 crash in Addis Ababa and instead sent it to France following fears that the US would influence the investigations.

Just after the crash in Tehran, Iran’s head of Civil Aviation Organisation, Mr Ali Abedzadeh declared that Iran wouldn’t send the black box to Boeing, instead saying that they would be assessed in Iran under ICAO rules but would only allow Ukraine to take part in the evaluation of the flight data.

However after it became definite that the aircraft was brought down by a missile, Iran has now decided to include Boeing and the US National Transportation Safety Board NTSB in the investigations of the crash. So far the NTSB has accepted the invitation by stating,” The NTSB has designated an accredited representative to the investigation of the crash.”

According to experts, although Iran has insisted that it wouldn’t send the black box to America, it will need to send the black box to a foreign country in case they are damaged. This appeared to be the case after Iran officials revealed that the recovered flight recorder sustained damage due to the intense fire and the impact of the crash.

They said there was a possibility that data stored electronically in them had been lost, but investigators could access some useful data from the damaged devices.

In such a case,  Iran just like Ethiopia, would most likely send the black box to a neutral country, such as France or Russia to analyse the data. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and French President Emmanuel Macron have both already agreed that French specialists would help decode the black boxes of the plane.

L'articolo Vested Interests in the Investigations of Ukrainian Flight 752 proviene da InsideOver.